Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byDawson Benfield Modified over 2 years ago

1
Change in schedule… Website currently says… August 5 th – first draft August 19 th – second draft Lets have instead… August 19 th – first draft

2
(5) Other calculations and tables/graphs

3
Overall Strategy (1) Average ES In-text: Average, range, total number Heterogeneity Fail-safe N Unweighted (and difference test to weighted) Outliers (and difference test to weighted after removing outliers) Charts/Tables: Descending order Stem-and-leaf Funnel Plot Boxplot

4
(1) Average ES: in-text The average weighted effect size was.1221 (CI =.1139,.1302, z = 29.07, p <.001). The range of effect sizes is.78 to -.61 across 296 total effect sizes. The heterogeneity test for the weighted effect size was significant (Qw (293) = 1145.87, p <.001), indicating that there was substantial variation within the weighted effect sizes.

5
Table: Descending order of ES

6
Chart: Stem-and-leaf

7
(1) Average ES: in-text A fail-safe N was calculated to ascertain the number of new, unpublished, or unretrieved studies required to reduce the significance of this averaged effect size to non-signifcance (Rosenthal, 1991), fail-safe N = 108,195. page 104-105 for Rosenthal, 1991

8
(1) Average ES: in-text A fail-safe N can also be calculated to ascertain the number of new, unpublished, or unretrieved studies required to reduce this averaged effect size to a specific level (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). To reduce the averaged effect size to a specified level of.1, the fail-safe N = 65, which indicates that it would take an additional 65 studies with an effect size of 0 to reduce the current meta- analyzed effect size of.1221 to.1. To reduce the average effect size to a specified level of.05, the fail-safe N = 424. To reduce the average effect size all the way to 0, the fail-safe N = 358,680. Page 166 of Lipsey/Wilson

9
(1) Average ES: in-text Unweighted “The unweighted effect size average is.1451 (CI =.1339,.1563, z = 25.14, p <.001). “ Difference Test to Weighted “The test of the differences between the two dependent effect sizes was non-significant, z =.41, p =.69. In other words, the weighted effect size was not influenced by particular sample sizes that were extremely large or small. “ http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/rpop.html http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/rpop.html

10
Chart: Funnel Plot

11
(1) Average ES: in-text Outlier analysis “Outlier analysis determines the existence of extreme effect sizes, as compared to the analysis above which tested the influence of extreme sample sizes. Chart 3 shows the boxplot for the weighted effect sizes.” “Eliminating the outliers produces a weighted effect size of.1137 (CI =.1054,.1219, z = 26.89, p <.001).” Difference test to weighted after removing outliers “The test of the differences between the weighted effect sizes with and without the outliers was non-significant, z =.15, p =.88. Thus, the weighted effect size was not significantly influenced by outliers.”

12
Chart: Boxplot

13
Overall Strategy (2) Moderators In-text: Interpreting the data and comparing/contrasting Charts/Tables: ES of Moderators Categorical Moderator Data Continuous Moderator Data 95% Error Bar Chart Multivariate Data

14
Table: Groupings of the ES

15
Table: Moderators

16
Chart: Error bars (95% CI)

17
Table: Multivariate

Similar presentations

OK

Wim Van den Noortgate Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium Belgian Campbell Group Workshop systematic reviews.

Wim Van den Noortgate Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium Belgian Campbell Group Workshop systematic reviews.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on different types of computer softwares and hardwares Ppt on game theory examples Ppt on introduction to information security Ppt on creativity and innovation management concept Ppt on cadbury dairy milk Ppt on obesity prevention in children Ppt on condition monitoring Ppt on communication skills for teachers Ppt on power line carrier communications Ppt on ehv ac dc